I'm not sure - now we can't have a planned activity without an agent -
so there will be phantom agents appearing.
There is also no way to say that the associated agent is actually
*performing* the activity. And so we only know that an agent performed
something with relation to the activity, and that something might or
might not have been following the associated plan.
These are DM issues, though.. so you can close this issue. I would
have to think of a good use-case of a plan/recipe which there is no
agent following - perhaps that's not possible?
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:41, Daniel Garijo
<dgarijo@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es> wrote:
> Hi Stian,
> this issue is still raised and pending review.
> now we have Plans to link an agent and a plan to an activity,
> with an Association.
>
> I think that we have addressed this issue, and it could be closed. Thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>
> 2011/9/28 Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
>
>> I don’t know that it’s a big deal, but I think of hadRecipe as potentially
>> very indirect rather than a subclass of used. I’d like to assert that the
>> “software development” PE was intended to satisfy the plan as documented in
>> “Work Breakdown Structure element 2.7” but in a use case like that, it seems
>> a stretch to say the PE used the plan versus that I’m just asserting that
>> the PE was intended to fulfill the plan (perhaps just the selection of this
>> PE versus another one was affected by the plan and, after the selection of
>> the PE, the plan was not directly used to guide it, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> From: public-prov-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-prov-wg-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Jim McCusker
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:21 AM
>> To: Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Cc: Paolo Missier; public-prov-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: PROV-ISSUE-102 (hadRecipe): Ontology is missing recipe link
>> [Formal Model]
>>
>>
>>
>> If we do adopt a hadPlan/hadRecipe property, it should be a subproperty of
>> used. In which case, if the plan/recipe had a class of Recipe/Plan already
>> (this is a role for an entity, by the way), then why do we need anything
>> other than used?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:11, Paolo Missier <Paolo.Missier@ncl.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > I recall a discussion with example as part of ISSUE-95 (now part of
>> > formal
>> > model): http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/95
>> > isn't that thread relevant?
>>
>> It is marked as relevant, but from the discussion it seems to still
>> rely on "hadRecipe" to say that a plan existed. Using that plan as a
>> class as well merely adds information, such as what kind of attributes
>> you could expect to find, or the hint that it *did* go according to
>> the plan.
>>
>> I get the feeling that ISSUE-95 is slightly controversial as it relies
>> on some OWL2 semantics, but that we are generally positive, however
>> the formal model as it stands does have a recipe as a simple link, and
>> I don't think this ISSUE-102 should be controversial or be much in
>> conflict with ISSUE-95.
>>
>> I have therefore put prov:hadRecipe into
>>
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/ontology/ProvenanceFormalModel.html#hadrecipe
>> - we can then later fill in what that blank resource is if we go for
>> ISSUE-102 - or remove it if 102 finds a better approach.
>>
>>
>> We can argue about the name in this thread - recipe/plan, etc..
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim McCusker
>> Programmer Analyst
>> Krauthammer Lab, Pathology Informatics
>> Yale School of Medicine
>> james.mccusker@yale.edu | (203) 785-6330
>> http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu
>>
>> PhD Student
>> Tetherless World Constellation
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>> mccusj@cs.rpi.edu
>> http://tw.rpi.edu
>
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester